Federal Insurance Company v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-05512
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Federal Insurance v. Nice-Pak, Judge McMahon denied defendants’ pleadings motion without prejudice, requiring proper policy citations and exhibits before refiling.
Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp., whose motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied without prejudice; Federal Insurance Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Company, whose policy documents and citations must be addressed in any renewed motion.
What happened
Federal Insurance Company sued Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp. over whether insurance policies covered a settlement in an ongoing consumer class action involving Nice-Pak’s “flushable” wipes. Nice-Pak and Costco brought claims against Federal and Twin City Fire Insurance Company, asserting that the insurers owed them coverage.
The defendants asked for judgment based on the pleadings, but the court found that the record was not adequately organized. The insurance-policy exhibits were difficult to navigate, important sections appeared to be missing, and the parties did not provide specific page citations. The record also lacked copies of two Twin City policies.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion without prejudice to renewal. She directed the defendants to refile within 20 business days and required the parties to provide precise policy citations, separately numbered exhibits, and copies of the missing Twin City policies.
The detailed version
- Federal Insurance Company v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05512
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 30, 2024
Background
Federal Insurance Company brought an insurance-coverage dispute against Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp. Federal sought a declaration that its commercial general liability policies issued to Nice-Pak did not require Federal to indemnify Nice-Pak or Costco for a settlement in an ongoing consumer class action involving Nice-Pak’s “flushable” wipes.
The policies identified in Federal’s complaint covered July 1, 2010 through August 15, 2011, and August 15, 2011 through August 15, 2012. Federal represented that it had attached complete copies of the policies, but the court found that the exhibits consisted of roughly 1,000 pages divided into multiple subparts, without a central table of contents or index. The court could not locate important policy sections, including a complete definitions section. The parties’ briefing also lacked specific page citations to the policy documents.
After the court allowed Twin City Fire Insurance Company to be joined as a counterclaim defendant, Nice-Pak and Costco asserted breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment counterclaims against both insurers. They alleged that Twin City issued policies covering August 15, 2012 through August 15, 2013; August 15, 2013 through August 15, 2014; and August 15, 2014 through August 15, 2015. They attached what they claimed was a copy of the 2014–15 policy, but did not provide copies of the 2012–13 or 2013–14 policies. They alleged that the two missing policies were “substantially identical” to the 2014–15 policy, based on information and belief.
Motion and Record Problems
Nice-Pak and Costco moved for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings is a decision based on the parties’ filed pleadings, such as the complaint and answer, rather than a trial. The court did not reach the underlying insurance-coverage issues because it found the record inadequate for review.
The court stated that it was not required to search through approximately 1,000 pages of exhibits without guidance. It required every reference to a policy provision in a brief to include a citation to the relevant page or pages. It also required each party to submit copies of cited pages as separately numbered exhibits attached to an affidavit or declaration. The court further directed that copies of the two missing Twin City policies be provided.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice to renewal on the stated terms and conditions. The defendants were given 20 business days to refile the motion and deliver a hard copy to chambers. Opposing parties were given 14 business days to respond, and the defendants were given 7 business days to file replies. The court stated that these deadlines would not be extended. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 43.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.